You are the only one and I mean the only one that I have seen to use an exact comparison, pose for pose with the model, which makes these types of comparisons easier to make. What you did and the way you did this makes identification of differences easier. Most will vary the model’s poses, so when doing an A to B, without showing the lens models, it becomes very difficult because most peoples minds react to any change in lighting, and poses. Great job.
Man I knew right away which lens was what. The canon to me is far better. Better color better character and most importantly better 3D pop! Sony renders flat. The fact that no one’s talks about this in lens reviews. All sharpness talk and in this video flare. Flare is sexy!
you can add a bloom with a mist filter (which is an extra expense on top), and you can try to minimize the effects of the flare in post (which costs time and effort). Both great lenses for their respective system. All boils down to how one would use said tool and the artistic choices of the one behind the shutter. Doesn't always have to be a brand war.
I feel the Canon is more natural with the flare, whereas the Sony, it feels like someone CGI the person into the pic. Just my 2 cents, lol Sony must have artificially reduced the flare in the camera's algorithm. I don't think that's how the original scene is suppose to look.
Funny enough, the EF 50 1.2L does have internal focusing thanks to the ring-type USM motor. Optically speaking, the RF version of the 50 1.2 is rumored to be nearly the same as the EF version. When it comes to technicality and optical performance, Sony takes the win but for character, it's Canon.
Side by side, I appreciate the character of the Canon image. It's just what the human eyes sees and human brain perceives when the sun is behind the subject. Kudos to Sony for controlling the flare though, but I prefer the natural look from the Canon.
If flare is desired it is way better to obtain fare with the use of filters. You can choose the amount and the style of the flare. Controlling flare by being forced to change the angle is a limitation. Also when you have low flare from a lens you have more freedom of choice in using filters. You can add flare, bloom, soft focus (but with nice contrast) etc etc.
Due to poor financial choices, I have both of these lenses. What makes me pick up the Sony every time is the clunky annoying focus motor in the canon. It’s loud and almost sounds broken when it’s tracking subjects. For the price, the focus system in the canon is inexcusable.
Yep. Thinking of selling my canon gear because of this (check out my review of the 85 1.2 and the 24-70 2.8). Their lenses have completely outdated motors in them. It's ridiculous for 2024 and the price of them. You can't use them when taking video in a quiet environment with any on-board mic. Constant tick tick tick tick noise. Sony GM lenses are completely silent with no moving parts. They're just better.
With all manufacturers striving for optical perfection, images are starting to look to clinical. I personally love the flare and not so perfect optical characteristics giving an image w little more naturalness, interest and character. 👍
What is your opinion based on, have you watched only videos or downloaded and familiarize yourself with the raw files too? I downloaded and watched the raw files and I can say that the photos taken with a Sony lens are stunning and amazing!
I just got the RF 50mm 1.2 so of course I'm going to say that one is the winner, lol. I've had Canon since I started shooting about 8 years ago or so. I've stuck with them so it doesn't bother me. I don't usually shoot golden our a whole lot, so I'm not sure how much flaring bothers me. They're both outstanding otherwise. The front element moving does slightly annoy me but I'm sure I'll get over it. That bokeh though... wow!
Taking into account Canon’s vast history and experience In manufacturing cameras and lenses, Sony isn’t doing too bad I might say 😁 They put out a 50 which is smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Flare and ghosting are caused by the reflection of light from one lens to another and then back to the sensor, however, sensor reflection is approximately 10x worse than a reflection on the lenses. It could be that Sony sensor is just superior. Would love to see how the Canon performs on the Sony sensor. In case you guys think that I'm a Canon fanboy, I shoot Canon for 7 years and have since switched to Sony like most people for obvious reasons.
I literally came to Canon RF just to use the 50 1.2. I probably would have stayed with Sony if they made the 50 1.2 sooner. I love the physical aperture ring on the GM lenses, I wish it is an option on Canon. I also notice the lens flare with all RF lenses, including the 70-200. However for me it is an advantage, that is a look I love. And one factor not mentioned is the ergonomics of the camera body. The 50 1.2, even the 28-70 is so well balanced on the R5. Sony feels small and toy-like.
@@wingcreator technology advance with time. I owned both sony 85 GM and it does not "beat" RF 85 1.2, simply because it is older tech. The 50 1.2 by sony is a tie with the RF 50 1.2. There is no RF 14 at all so there is nothing to beat. The RF 28-80 f2 is a far superior lens than Sony 24-70 GM mark II because again, we are comparing apple and oranges. I think both Sony and Canon makes outstanding lenses. But the new RF lenses are pushing Sony to catch up. Sony did not make the 50 1.2 until Canon did it for over a year. Competition makes everyone a winner.
@@victormartinez-un7ls that sounds like a Sony fan boy talking. I would say the best of Canon and Sony are so good they are neck to neck. Cannon is innovating and Sony is play catch up. Canon has the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 28-70 f2 for a while now. The only catch up Sony did is to have the 50 1.2. Sony still has ways to go.
@@chrisjohnsonfilms Sony 50mm 1.2 will be great in backlight situations like in entourage in wedding,. But RF 50mm 1.2 will be much better in video,. Specially when you want to make powerful ending in your wedding video highlights,.
Had the hardest time deciding between Sony and Canon. Ended up going with Sony and coincidentally delivered today right before this video dropped! Thanks for making me feel better about my choice haha. As always, great video!
No reger with Sony .. they are the masters in cameras and lenses.. I own a73 and a7s3 and they are marvelous with collection of g master, zeiss, tamron, & sigma lenese ...
Definitely, whether it's down to the lens or the processing or both, the skin tones are too green on the Canon and the blues are tending towards more magenta than the Sony.
I don't want nor need flares coming across my lenses from every different direction that I can't always control or want at times and the contrast alone makes a big difference to me. They both look good, Just me
So, I know you were measuring something different, but time and time again I was more impressed with photo B over photo A. Photo B’s just looked soooo much better. It has more soul. It’s far more magical. Photo A’s were clinical. I just wasn’t impressed with the Sony lens. Good video.
Excellent point! I’ve shot with both systems and in my opinion skin tones with Canon lenses are perfect right out of camera whereas Sony’s are not. Would have been nice to see the straight out of camera images in this video as well.
I feel like the Canon lens has a more 3D look, than the Sony. I used to shoot with canon for about 10 years before moving to Sony 7 years ago. I don’t worry about Canon, since I’m shooting Sony now. If I were using Canon, it didn’t matter what Sony was doing as long as I had Canon lenses that worked for me.
the Sony has a “flatter” optical rendering and is optically better-corrected but shows less character than the Canon… “less character” doesn’t mean it’s worse…it just boils down to preference…as a Sony enjoyer, actually prefer the Canon lens here.
14, 35, 135 (Canon RF and Nikon Z have not got them yet), 50, 2470v2, and 70200v2 GM are all amazing and probably the best of the 3 brands. Can't wait to see the 85 f1.2, 105 f1.4, and 200 f2.0 GM! Would be a wild dream to have a smallish 400 f4 GM (like Nikon Z 400 f4.5)!
I love the look in certain occasions too, such as moody portraits. However, there's more instances when I prefer clean image with no flare (landscapes, architecture, events, certain portraits etc.). The good thing is that the bloom/flare is easy to add with a comparably cheap bloom filter. Hence, it's much better to have a lens that doesn't flare.
Hey Alex, The pictures taken with the Sony are quite clinical, reminds me of Sigma's 50mm 1.4 The canon on the other side has character... The only thing i can't forgive about the canon is the fringing.. it makes the lens look old and cheap... not to mention the $ 300 more expensive that i hesitate on buying.
Sony 50GM is the best AF 50mm I have ever owned. The Canon EF 50 1.2 was lighter but terribly unreliable in AF and the image quality is not top-notch. I am very surprised that the Canon R version is not as good as Sony. As of Nikon Z 50 1.2 (really big and heavy).
@@kernel0508 I have been using Sony 50 GM. That’s my answer. I did say Nikon is big and heavy. Also, the Canon is bigger and more expensive than GM. Is that clear what is the best AF 50 1.2 mirrorless?
Great comparison. I actually just started into the sony alpha system and I'm not regretting it. I was a Nikon user for decades but felt it was time to move on.
Awesome as usual, i hoped you gonna do a bit of af comparison. I owned canon R with rf50 1.2 and it was hands down best combo i ever used. But then the price of r6 was so astronomical, i picked up 2x used(10-20k shutter) a7III for the same price of one r6 which is crazy. Now i own 35GM and 135GM to go with it. At the time the 50GM wasnt really out yet but my ultimate combo would be 24gm and 50gm. Since i get to know the rf50 very very well i was wondering how the Sony 50GM will stack against, i feel like the AF speed of the Sony should be faster, i also thought canon lens wiht the bigger mount and all that will gather slightly more light then sony and didnt believe sony is true 1.2 but i guess i was wrong, which really makes me wonder what the heck is the advantage of this big mount in real life except geeking over useless stuff.
image stabilization benefits for those who need it. The sensor can shift a lot more in the bigger opening. Me personally, I don't care for stabilization that much.
The larger mount that can make a better 1.2 lens is bull. Sony proved that 50 1.2 GM is possible with a small mount as it said all along. Let's hope Sony will do the same with the 85 1.2 GM soon!
@@wingcreator 50mm is not the only focal length, if you noticed. How about 200mm and longer. The image movement will get more range as the focal length becomes longer. I hope that makes sense. What do you think?
I generally don't like brand comparisons because of the vitriol I end up seeing in the comments. I do use Sony and I'm generally pretty happy, but I also think Canon has been doing a Great job with their mirrorless cameras. It's funny that people don't really understand how awesome these Sony lenses are. About 3 years ago something changed with their lens manufacturing and they have been absolutely outstanding in their design. Another important thing to know is that that 50 and all of their other g master lenses have very fast dual linear motors that focus on the fastest camera. Sony has had very high frame rates. Some of the lenses have a little bit of a focus breathing issue with regards to video, but whatever change that Sony a few years ago really made a difference in their lens quality
I like canon more... even on your photos. Sony is sharper but it has a sharper falloff, too much corrected and colder out of focus highlights. Canon blends in just like Leica m 50mm 1.4. while staying a bit sharper across the image (compared to Leica). Plus I like flair :) It makes a image look better. anyway I like how you matched those two by a margin that is really hard to see.
@@davidjoseph4459 since when resolution change the amount of bokeh? I mean if a can see this on a 1080p screen it has nothing to do with that. I have seen this already with 85mm. The RF is a real 85 while the sigma i tested was probably a 82mm. Makes a difference.
… of cause: The GM is the lens with the better IQ and build quality - great job, Sony! 👍🏻 btw: If I wan‘t the flares or a dreamy look I put filter on my 50 mm 1.2. I have no interest to spent over 2.000 bucks for lens, that has this issue if I don’t want it. 🤷🏼♂️ Great comparison, thx for the video! 👍🏻
Yes, definitely with a filter but also easily done in post with the added benefit that you can control how much flaring you want artistically and what you want it to look like too.
I own an A7RIV and the 50mm GM, that sensor really makes the lens shine and then some. Be interesting to see you compare the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art DG DN vs the Canon RF 85mm f1.2 :-)
Thank you for a great video, and for sharing your comparison images. Comparing the RAW files, the Sony pictures look waaaaaay sharper to me. Is this a result of the lower MP of the R6, or the differing sharpness of the lens? Would be really interested to see how the Canon 50mm does on an R5! I’m trying to decide between Sony A7IV vs Canon R5, with one of these lenses + a zoom (mainly for stills). Any advice from your experience with either system?
Man. I bought an a7IV after selling my R5 and I was regretting every day. "The Sony colours are not like Canon colours and blablabla". After downloading your RAW files, what I have to say to myself is a big "BULLSHIT". I went so far that I bought an EOS R (cause I still have the RF 24 70) just to test them side by side and I'm highly motivated to do a video like yours to debunk the myth of colour science. I think is good to stress the subject cause some famous UA-camrs keep saying that one is better than another. Thank you very much for your videos and thank you for sharing the RAW files. Subscribed and following. Cheers
Learn to process each brands’ RAW, no single camera system has the perfect colour science (just like films from Kodak, Fuji and Agfa have colour biases).
I personally like the bloom and its means I dont have to buy another pieces of glass to add or I can really lean into it and put a mist filter on The L glass has more character and Sony more clinical both have there place and pick you poison. The canon is also not quite as bitingly sharp at least on the R6 which can also be desirable. end of the day it really doesnt matter as you'll buy the one for you're system but it is nice to see what you get if your on fence for purchasing either system.
Love the examples when you aren't shooting back lit photos, which I never do. But I'm not a wedding photographer. Please continue these comparisons and yes it is true, you cannot see the differences like you can with the actual image. I was surprised at the awful chromatic aberration from the Canon on your models jewelry. That is a huge flaw in a $2300 lens. Fantastic heads up Alex.
The comparison tells me which ones Canon at a glance. There's just something to it that's unique even after the years of pixelpeeping and shift to mirrorless.
Could the smaller mount be the reason Sony is more “controlled”. I would think that “step down” in the Sony glass would have some play in how that lights getting back to the sensor.
Well, Nikon and Canon said larger mounts are better. So larger and heavier lenses too (at least the 1.2). That is the reason why Sigma lenses were huge but great (using larger glass, not larger mount).
I am very happy that I years ago abandoned Canon who was much too slow to develop new cameras, Sony make excellent Cameras and Lenses, although I do not like 50mm Lenses I can see how the differences are on the Canon and the Sony 50mm Lenses here, Canon are more expensive and much heavier and have no aperture ring. Shame on you Canon !!!
Exactly the reason I left Canon for the Sony A7 series after 32 years of usage. Canon's marketing is taking over R & D over the last 10 years, not really cared about photographers having to wait for RF lenses even if Canon fans are begging to pay! Yes, RF lenses are usually more expensive, larger, and heavier than Sony lenses. Also, Canon RF users are bitching there are not much 3rd party lenses available, they will have to pose that question to Canon! I use Samyang FE and they are getting better and better but still very economical.
"Its a wash," the average photographed cannot see a difference! This is pretty much how modern lenses are, if placed on a tripod, with all things being even, there little or no differences. Get the cheapest or the one with the better handling and that in my opinion is usually a Sigma!
It's always easy to add flare in post, it's almost impossible to recover detail in post . Pretty amazing what Sony so going with their glass. It is clearly superior in every way, especially the gen 2 g masters that have been coming out. So much for the Canon glass being superior argument people uses to make.
Super comparison. Canon colors despite flaring seem a bit warmer, saturated, and more natural-may be extra brightness of the Sony or a system difference. Thanks for such a fair review.
The true Sony problem is not body, is the actual 24-70 f2.8 lens. When they want Sony can propose a new 24-70 we can be at the level. Every G master Sony lens are very good, very small and light but NOT the 24-70 f2.8. And for me is a very important tool tha make me stay on Canon who have since long time the excellent EF 24-70 f2.8.
Картинка с canon и sony дегко отличить - sony больше контраста, более резкая картинка. Тут заслуга zeiss наработок, без муар фильровая матрица, хорошая работа dro.
I actually kind of like the characteristics of non lab perfect lenses, the sigma glass especially to me seems like they are after the most white wall lab perfect lens and for somethings thats great I dont think portartats necessarily benefit from that. I would love to see some of the 80s Medium format glass paired with a modern rf focus system
“CaNoN coLoRs aRe sO mUcH bEttEr ThaN SoNys” -Every crying canon fanboy Funny thing is I thought A was canon because I thought the greens looked a smidge better and I assumed based off the colors “looking better.” In reality they look the same and it all comes down to editing anyways. Meanwhile the only issue I see with canon is the price of the RF glass…
WRONG : 9:35 Bokeh balls are, PROPORTIONNALY, of the same size. Mind bogeling how precisaly you, within this otherwise superb video (usefull, overall correct conclusions) did not take in account this (Roughly: Eyebrows are at same hight, nose much longer on the Canon pic. Under its right eye you could place more multiple eyes underneath on the canon pic than "multiple eyes" under the Sony's right eye pic. Apply this factor to the Bokeh ball and proportion balance out equal - I pretend) BTW Lens flare of the esthetic type can be added (not remooved lol) easily with lots of control with editing filters. I (just only) wonder what if (morally ok? technically acceptably?) you had shifted color rendition of each file half way toward the other's rendering (convert to b&w at any stage is probably not helpfull). Thank You for this video! (I own the f1.2 sony -and had the early (old)Canon FE f1.2. ) BTW my Sigma DG DN 85mm F1.4 is far better to me than the (now "old") GM. Perhaps You might want to compare it (but/even turn on distortion control!) with Canon's versions.
@@wingcreator ? I meant (and said it) You to compare the DG DN to a Canon RF 85mm version. ?? Was this answer of Yours meant to imply that all the main stuff of my comments are not worth answering ?
Lens A definitely has more contrast and a more clinical look to my eye - not sure I like it. While it's hard to ignore the colour differences, these can be tweaked anyway. I do prefer the more natural look of Lens B. With the bonus of just pointing toward the sun if I want flare, without bloom filters etc. Great comparison, both great lenses.
This doenst mean you're switching to Sony, does it? I shot both lenses, and the rendering and bokeh quality, especially in busy backgrounds, was quite a bit nicer on the Canon 50mm 1.2. There is a special look to the Canon images, but the Sony GM while nice, having the optical qualities of a 50mm 1.2 (depth of field), and it is well corrected for any imperfections (good coatings, little to no distortion), doesn't feel as special. The flare on the Canon 50 i find it artistic. That's just my subjective opinion.
But if i have to pick which lens i would pick to shoot wedding i'll definitely take the Canon , it is so dreamy the sun from her behind, makes ur wife looks so dreamy and daaamnnn it is so pleasing to the eye to watch, the sony, it has no character lol
Wonderful video thanks for the comparison. Very surprised because the Canon lens is out of this world but the Sony held its own. Gotta admit that Canon bloom looks nice. My experience with the Sony is the AF accuracy at 1.2 is heavily dependent on the body.
I would say that you should not compare two completely different cameras like you have. The Sony is a 60mp vs a 20mp Canon. Sorry, but you lost me right there. Use a Sony A7R3 and Canon R5 to get the best comparison.
Sony has showed time and time again than their smaller diameter mount doesn't hinder them in any way. They got the sharpest, fastest focusing and best optically performing lenses in the premium segment. And for everyone else, the largest autofocusing native lens selection. So stop the 70IQ fanboying with no basis in reality and just enjoy the system you personally prefer and stop bashing the other systems.
@@hiawrj it does, it's easier to make lens with larger mount compare small one, easier means it's cheaper to design one Notice how sony stop making entry level lens, all their new lenses are about 1500 dollarish, while canon offer shooting 100-400 on ff at just 600 dollars It also allow eccentric design such as 800/600 f11 and 35 1.8 macro which rear elements protruding so much behind mount, sony 35 is just normal 35, while canon 35 is a stabilized and macro at the same time for same amount of money
@@auliaalam4860 the difference is so minor in real world application. But by all means, if people want specific canon lenses that sony doesnt offer, then go ahead. But right now sony is 4 years ahead of competition when it comes to lens selection. Personally I prefer premium lenses, so I use Sony bodies right now. I've owned Canon and Nikon as well. If they start making stuff I personally want, then ill buy their bodies. But mount size is the very least of my concerns.
@@hiawrj minor? Hmm Canon 85 is 4 times magnification over sony, 4 times more pixel at close distance that you can skip buying macro lens They are pushing it to next level, by allowing rear elements to get closer they planning to make 1200mm f8/f9 catadioptric lens with af, image stabilization and good iq, the idea is shoving glass close to sensor to improve IQ, can it be done in sony mount? Sure but need to do correction thus more expensive to make, defeating the purpose of catadioptric lens
IMO the Canon's bokeh just looks more pleasing as it is more softer than the sony. It could be that the canon is just a tiny bit more longer focal lenght than sony, thus creating better bokeh. And also the contrast & flaring thing is something that I personally liked much better on the canon than the sony. For my taste the sony seemed kinda too optically good that it lost some character. But in any case, both of them are pretty much identical with minimal differences. If you blame that either of them is preventing you from taking great photos, you might wanna quit photography :D
You are the only one and I mean the only one that I have seen to use an exact comparison, pose for pose with the model, which makes these types of comparisons easier to make. What you did and the way you did this makes identification of differences easier. Most will vary the model’s poses, so when doing an A to B, without showing the lens models, it becomes very difficult because most peoples minds react to any change in lighting, and poses. Great job.
The framing was slightly tighter on the Canon so it’s not 100% ideal, but pretty good nonetheless.
Man I knew right away which lens was what. The canon to me is far better. Better color better character and most importantly better 3D pop! Sony renders flat. The fact that no one’s talks about this in lens reviews. All sharpness talk and in this video flare. Flare is sexy!
you can add a bloom with a mist filter (which is an extra expense on top), and you can try to minimize the effects of the flare in post (which costs time and effort). Both great lenses for their respective system. All boils down to how one would use said tool and the artistic choices of the one behind the shutter. Doesn't always have to be a brand war.
I feel the Canon is more natural with the flare, whereas the Sony, it feels like someone CGI the person into the pic. Just my 2 cents, lol Sony must have artificially reduced the flare in the camera's algorithm. I don't think that's how the original scene is suppose to look.
Funny enough, the EF 50 1.2L does have internal focusing thanks to the ring-type USM motor. Optically speaking, the RF version of the 50 1.2 is rumored to be nearly the same as the EF version. When it comes to technicality and optical performance, Sony takes the win but for character, it's Canon.
Bad flare control does not equal better character. If you want slap a mist filter and there you go, which is better to have a choice
Side by side, I appreciate the character of the Canon image. It's just what the human eyes sees and human brain perceives when the sun is behind the subject. Kudos to Sony for controlling the flare though, but I prefer the natural look from the Canon.
They are literally the same image... Canon just has bad flare control its not character
If flare is desired it is way better to obtain fare with the use of filters. You can choose the amount and the style of the flare. Controlling flare by being forced to change the angle is a limitation.
Also when you have low flare from a lens you have more freedom of choice in using filters. You can add flare, bloom, soft focus (but with nice contrast) etc etc.
Why does the subject in most photos on Sony look flat, while on the canon lens the subject is popping out more?
the canons 50mm has a little bit more characteristic than the sonys .. both great lens though
That's called micro-contrast, the underestimated L line advantage
Due to poor financial choices, I have both of these lenses. What makes me pick up the Sony every time is the clunky annoying focus motor in the canon. It’s loud and almost sounds broken when it’s tracking subjects. For the price, the focus system in the canon is inexcusable.
Yep. Thinking of selling my canon gear because of this (check out my review of the 85 1.2 and the 24-70 2.8). Their lenses have completely outdated motors in them. It's ridiculous for 2024 and the price of them. You can't use them when taking video in a quiet environment with any on-board mic. Constant tick tick tick tick noise. Sony GM lenses are completely silent with no moving parts. They're just better.
You really can't lose with any of these two lenses. Amazing!
With all manufacturers striving for optical perfection, images are starting to look to clinical. I personally love the flare and not so perfect optical characteristics giving an image w little more naturalness, interest and character. 👍
But yet still we go for perfection
I was shocked at how on some of the closeup shots, the 20MP R6 looked sharper and more detailed than the A7IV shots with 32 MP.
What is your opinion based on, have you watched only videos or downloaded and familiarize yourself with the raw files too? I downloaded and watched the raw files and I can say that the photos taken with a Sony lens are stunning and amazing!
Nonsense
I just got the RF 50mm 1.2 so of course I'm going to say that one is the winner, lol. I've had Canon since I started shooting about 8 years ago or so. I've stuck with them so it doesn't bother me. I don't usually shoot golden our a whole lot, so I'm not sure how much flaring bothers me. They're both outstanding otherwise. The front element moving does slightly annoy me but I'm sure I'll get over it. That bokeh though... wow!
wow massive loud noisy lens ! :D
Taking into account Canon’s vast history and experience In manufacturing cameras and lenses, Sony isn’t doing too bad I might say 😁 They put out a 50 which is smaller, lighter and cheaper.
I feel like it has to be cheaper
@@Thai.Hthat’s because the Sony is about $200-300 cheaper. So yeah, it is..
Flare and ghosting are caused by the reflection of light from one lens to another and then back to the sensor, however, sensor reflection is approximately 10x worse than a reflection on the lenses. It could be that Sony sensor is just superior. Would love to see how the Canon performs on the Sony sensor. In case you guys think that I'm a Canon fanboy, I shoot Canon for 7 years and have since switched to Sony like most people for obvious reasons.
Most ppl? Mehh... i tried sony and immediately switch back to canon
The Sony is much better imho...it has less contrast and saturation, but also better flares control. Thanks for the video!
I literally came to Canon RF just to use the 50 1.2. I probably would have stayed with Sony if they made the 50 1.2 sooner. I love the physical aperture ring on the GM lenses, I wish it is an option on Canon. I also notice the lens flare with all RF lenses, including the 70-200. However for me it is an advantage, that is a look I love. And one factor not mentioned is the ergonomics of the camera body. The 50 1.2, even the 28-70 is so well balanced on the R5. Sony feels small and toy-like.
Agree with everything you said! Ergonomics are key for me
The 14GM / 50GM / 2470GM2 / 70200GM2 beat Canon RF and Nikon Z hands down! Wait for the 85 1.2GM and 105 1.4GM.
@@wingcreator technology advance with time. I owned both sony 85 GM and it does not "beat" RF 85 1.2, simply because it is older tech. The 50 1.2 by sony is a tie with the RF 50 1.2. There is no RF 14 at all so there is nothing to beat. The RF 28-80 f2 is a far superior lens than Sony 24-70 GM mark II because again, we are comparing apple and oranges. I think both Sony and Canon makes outstanding lenses. But the new RF lenses are pushing Sony to catch up. Sony did not make the 50 1.2 until Canon did it for over a year. Competition makes everyone a winner.
@@albertma5467 Sony didn’t just catch up… it surpassed Canon in every way.
@@victormartinez-un7ls that sounds like a Sony fan boy talking. I would say the best of Canon and Sony are so good they are neck to neck. Cannon is innovating and Sony is play catch up. Canon has the 50 1.2, 85 1.2, and 28-70 f2 for a while now. The only catch up Sony did is to have the 50 1.2. Sony still has ways to go.
I own both - I could tell with the greens
I prefer the flare personally from the Canon
Me too 😂 fuji also make their lens handling the flare beautifully too like canon...
me too,.. also lense flare are so beautiful when your shooting videos,.
@@kenjiyamamoto423 agreed. Love the flare for video
@@chrisjohnsonfilms Sony 50mm 1.2 will be great in backlight situations like in entourage in wedding,.
But RF 50mm 1.2 will be much better in video,. Specially when you want to make powerful ending in your wedding video highlights,.
@@kenjiyamamoto423 Or you just get a flare plugin or overlays.
Had the hardest time deciding between Sony and Canon. Ended up going with Sony and coincidentally delivered today right before this video dropped! Thanks for making me feel better about my choice haha. As always, great video!
Both great systems! Enjoy your new kit man, you are going to love it.
No reger with Sony .. they are the masters in cameras and lenses.. I own a73 and a7s3 and they are marvelous with collection of g master, zeiss, tamron, & sigma lenese ...
Sigma 50 1.4 still looking like the best bang for buck in 2022 (for 50mm)
Was waiting for this thanks Alex !!!
Hope you enjoy!
I’m feeling the colours more from the Sony
Definitely, whether it's down to the lens or the processing or both, the skin tones are too green on the Canon and the blues are tending towards more magenta than the Sony.
I don't want nor need flares coming across my lenses from every different direction that I can't always control or want at times and the contrast alone makes a big difference to me. They both look good, Just me
So, I know you were measuring something different, but time and time again I was more impressed with photo B over photo A. Photo B’s just looked soooo much better. It has more soul. It’s far more magical. Photo A’s were clinical. I just wasn’t impressed with the Sony lens. Good video.
Okay dude.. keep justifying your purchase, we get it.
@@mrwashur1991 Hahaha. I haven’t bought it. But it’s obvious what you’ve purchased. 🤦♂️
Canon looks more organic and pleasing than Sony
Excellent point! I’ve shot with both systems and in my opinion skin tones with Canon lenses are perfect right out of camera whereas Sony’s are not. Would have been nice to see the straight out of camera images in this video as well.
I feel like the Canon lens has a more 3D look, than the Sony.
I used to shoot with canon for about 10 years before moving to Sony 7 years ago.
I don’t worry about Canon, since I’m shooting Sony now.
If I were using Canon, it didn’t matter what Sony was doing as long as I had Canon lenses that worked for me.
the Sony has a “flatter” optical rendering and is optically better-corrected but shows less character than the Canon… “less character” doesn’t mean it’s worse…it just boils down to preference…as a Sony enjoyer, actually prefer the Canon lens here.
sony 35 gm ,50 gm 135 gm and 70-200 gm ii are the best in their class at present.
And that new 24-70gm 2 is a beast as well
@@town3 of cause.
14, 35, 135 (Canon RF and Nikon Z have not got them yet), 50, 2470v2, and 70200v2 GM are all amazing and probably the best of the 3 brands. Can't wait to see the 85 f1.2, 105 f1.4, and 200 f2.0 GM! Would be a wild dream to have a smallish 400 f4 GM (like Nikon Z 400 f4.5)!
@@wingcreator if the sony will release 105 1.4 Gm i will definitely buy it.
@@asankalakmal5502 long rumour of 105 1.4 GM
Excellent comparison. I'd love to see a similar video comparing the 50mm f1.2 GM to the 50mm f1.4.
Yes! As soon as I can get my hands on the new Sony 50mm 1.4
Thumbs up for canon for the flare, I loved the aesthetics.
I love the look in certain occasions too, such as moody portraits. However, there's more instances when I prefer clean image with no flare (landscapes, architecture, events, certain portraits etc.).
The good thing is that the bloom/flare is easy to add with a comparably cheap bloom filter. Hence, it's much better to have a lens that doesn't flare.
Hey Alex, The pictures taken with the Sony are quite clinical, reminds me of Sigma's 50mm 1.4 The canon on the other side has character... The only thing i can't forgive about the canon is the fringing.. it makes the lens look old and cheap... not to mention the $ 300 more expensive that i hesitate on buying.
That's how everyone defends a weakness. "Character."
Great comparison. I think focus speed is better on GM & also CA control. Sony is also lighter. For me, Sony is the winner here.
Sony 50GM is the best AF 50mm I have ever owned. The Canon EF 50 1.2 was lighter but terribly unreliable in AF and the image quality is not top-notch. I am very surprised that the Canon R version is not as good as Sony. As of Nikon Z 50 1.2 (really big and heavy).
@@wingcreator Z version I see almost the same image quality, but it's huge. So for me, Sony is the best between 3 mirrorless 50 f1.2
@@wingcreator ua-cam.com/video/xKyC51L4fSA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=TakanoriYazawa%E7%9F%A2%E6%B2%A2%E9%9A%86%E5%89%87
@@kernel0508 I have been using Sony 50 GM. That’s my answer. I did say Nikon is big and heavy. Also, the Canon is bigger and more expensive than GM. Is that clear what is the best AF 50 1.2 mirrorless?
@@wingcreator totally agree with you 😊
Incredible comparison video! You truly helped me to determine what direction I need to go! Great job and thank you so much!
Great comparison. I actually just started into the sony alpha system and I'm not regretting it. I was a Nikon user for decades but felt it was time to move on.
Awesome as usual, i hoped you gonna do a bit of af comparison. I owned canon R with rf50 1.2 and it was hands down best combo i ever used. But then the price of r6 was so astronomical, i picked up 2x used(10-20k shutter) a7III for the same price of one r6 which is crazy. Now i own 35GM and 135GM to go with it. At the time the 50GM wasnt really out yet but my ultimate combo would be 24gm and 50gm. Since i get to know the rf50 very very well i was wondering how the Sony 50GM will stack against, i feel like the AF speed of the Sony should be faster, i also thought canon lens wiht the bigger mount and all that will gather slightly more light then sony and didnt believe sony is true 1.2 but i guess i was wrong, which really makes me wonder what the heck is the advantage of this big mount in real life except geeking over useless stuff.
image stabilization benefits for those who need it. The sensor can shift a lot more in the bigger opening. Me personally, I don't care for stabilization that much.
The larger mount that can make a better 1.2 lens is bull. Sony proved that 50 1.2 GM is possible with a small mount as it said all along. Let's hope Sony will do the same with the 85 1.2 GM soon!
@@wingcreator 50mm is not the only focal length, if you noticed. How about 200mm and longer. The image movement will get more range as the focal length becomes longer. I hope that makes sense. What do you think?
@@Sergei__v Sony do have 400 and 600. I am sure Sony will release more super-Tele in due time with the same E-Mount.
@@wingcreator no doubt. What is the IS capability vs the bigger Canon Mount 600mm
I generally don't like brand comparisons because of the vitriol I end up seeing in the comments. I do use Sony and I'm generally pretty happy, but I also think Canon has been doing a Great job with their mirrorless cameras. It's funny that people don't really understand how awesome these Sony lenses are. About 3 years ago something changed with their lens manufacturing and they have been absolutely outstanding in their design. Another important thing to know is that that 50 and all of their other g master lenses have very fast dual linear motors that focus on the fastest camera. Sony has had very high frame rates. Some of the lenses have a little bit of a focus breathing issue with regards to video, but whatever change that Sony a few years ago really made a difference in their lens quality
great job Alex
I like canon more... even on your photos. Sony is sharper but it has a sharper falloff, too much corrected and colder out of focus highlights. Canon blends in just like Leica m 50mm 1.4. while staying a bit sharper across the image (compared to Leica). Plus I like flair :) It makes a image look better. anyway I like how you matched those two by a margin that is really hard to see.
I downloaded and watched the raw files and I can say that the photos taken with a Sony lens are stunning and amazing!
A little more blur with the canon I think (real 50mm vs 46 or 47mm?)
You’re talking about a 20mp Canon vs a 60mp Sony. Not a fair comparison
@@davidjoseph4459 since when resolution change the amount of bokeh? I mean if a can see this on a 1080p screen it has nothing to do with that. I have seen this already with 85mm. The RF is a real 85 while the sigma i tested was probably a 82mm. Makes a difference.
@@davidjoseph4459 the Sony isn’t 60 megapixels. He used the 33 megapixel Sony A7IV, not the A7RIV…
Thank you
Did you move to Florida from Texas?
I sure did!
… of cause: The GM is the lens with the better IQ and build quality - great job, Sony! 👍🏻 btw: If I wan‘t the flares or a dreamy look I put filter on my 50 mm 1.2. I have no interest to spent over 2.000 bucks for lens, that has this issue if I don’t want it. 🤷🏼♂️ Great comparison, thx for the video! 👍🏻
Yes, definitely with a filter but also easily done in post with the added benefit that you can control how much flaring you want artistically and what you want it to look like too.
I own an A7RIV and the 50mm GM, that sensor really makes the lens shine and then some.
Be interesting to see you compare the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art DG DN vs the Canon RF 85mm f1.2 :-)
why the Sigma. only EF Canon 85mm f1.4 Is
@@infrarouge75 Because the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN is the best 85mm on emount if you want to compare lenses across systems.
@@joe2snj is juste because you don't touche th ef canon version. I comparéd both and trust me.
@@infrarouge75 You compared what to what?
Wait for the 85 f1.2 GM.
Thank you for a great video, and for sharing your comparison images.
Comparing the RAW files, the Sony pictures look waaaaaay sharper to me. Is this a result of the lower MP of the R6, or the differing sharpness of the lens?
Would be really interested to see how the Canon 50mm does on an R5!
I’m trying to decide between Sony A7IV vs Canon R5, with one of these lenses + a zoom (mainly for stills). Any advice from your experience with either system?
I am a canon shooter and love the RF system. I honestly have little to no complains with the RF system.
A7IV + 50 + 2470II + 70200II GM to start with.
The raw samples are a really nice touch man
I like the look from both lens. The lens flare I like it but there will be times I don't want it.
Flare can easily be added or accentuated in post. Whereas removing flare is far more difficult.
Camera B seems to have more details in the shadows when looking at the hair and background bushes
Man. I bought an a7IV after selling my R5 and I was regretting every day. "The Sony colours are not like Canon colours and blablabla". After downloading your RAW files, what I have to say to myself is a big "BULLSHIT".
I went so far that I bought an EOS R (cause I still have the RF 24 70) just to test them side by side and I'm highly motivated to do a video like yours to debunk the myth of colour science.
I think is good to stress the subject cause some famous UA-camrs keep saying that one is better than another.
Thank you very much for your videos and thank you for sharing the RAW files.
Subscribed and following.
Cheers
Learn to process each brands’ RAW, no single camera system has the perfect colour science (just like films from Kodak, Fuji and Agfa have colour biases).
Learn to edit properly. It's a raw format...
Felicitaciones por tu objetividad. Gran comparativa
I rented the Sony 50 1.2 and its a stellar lens. I'm anxious to see how the upcoming Sigma 50 1.2 does!
Hoping Sigma releases that, they have been killing it.
@@ABarrera The problem is that Sigma is usually a Bigma.
Great video Mr Barrera! Thanks for pointing these little defects from Canon, it helps to make a decision between them two 😃😃😃
Excellent !!!
Did you have the lens hood on or off
Hood on
I personally like the bloom and its means I dont have to buy another pieces of glass to add or I can really lean into it and put a mist filter on The L glass has more character and Sony more clinical both have there place and pick you poison. The canon is also not quite as bitingly sharp at least on the R6 which can also be desirable. end of the day it really doesnt matter as you'll buy the one for you're system but it is nice to see what you get if your on fence for purchasing either system.
Love the examples when you aren't shooting back lit photos, which I never do. But I'm not a wedding photographer. Please continue these comparisons and yes it is true, you cannot see the differences like you can with the actual image. I was surprised at the awful chromatic aberration from the Canon on your models jewelry. That is a huge flaw in a $2300 lens. Fantastic heads up Alex.
The comparison tells me which ones Canon at a glance. There's just something to it that's unique even after the years of pixelpeeping and shift to mirrorless.
Could the smaller mount be the reason Sony is more “controlled”. I would think that “step down” in the Sony glass would have some play in how that lights getting back to the sensor.
Well, Nikon and Canon said larger mounts are better. So larger and heavier lenses too (at least the 1.2). That is the reason why Sigma lenses were huge but great (using larger glass, not larger mount).
The Sony is not a true 50mm. It's more like a 47mm.
Ok now the real question.. price aside. 50 Summicron SL, Canon 50 1.2, or Sony 50 1.2?
I would still go with the Canon RF 50 1.2….at 2.0 it matches the summicron and has the option to go to 1.2
Great vs. brother!
Muchas gracias
Looks like the Disney resort. I think canon is B because of the flare. Other wise they look pretty similar on my phone haha.
This video does look even sharper! That R5C is wow
This is why I ditched my Sony setup. It’s too clinical for my liking. I always felt the 50mm GM lacked soul, and this comparison explains why.
I am very happy that I years ago abandoned Canon who was much too slow to develop new cameras, Sony make excellent Cameras and Lenses, although I do not like 50mm Lenses I can see how the differences are on the Canon and the Sony 50mm Lenses here, Canon are more expensive and much heavier and have no aperture ring. Shame on you Canon !!!
Exactly the reason I left Canon for the Sony A7 series after 32 years of usage. Canon's marketing is taking over R & D over the last 10 years, not really cared about photographers having to wait for RF lenses even if Canon fans are begging to pay! Yes, RF lenses are usually more expensive, larger, and heavier than Sony lenses. Also, Canon RF users are bitching there are not much 3rd party lenses available, they will have to pose that question to Canon! I use Samyang FE and they are getting better and better but still very economical.
"Its a wash," the average photographed cannot see a difference! This is pretty much how modern lenses are, if placed on a tripod, with all things being even, there little or no differences. Get the cheapest or the one with the better handling and that in my opinion is usually a Sigma!
Yep my sigma 50mm 1.4 is still holding strong since 2017. Even better on my R5.
Personally prefer Canon
It's always easy to add flare in post, it's almost impossible to recover detail in post .
Pretty amazing what Sony so going with their glass. It is clearly superior in every way, especially the gen 2 g masters that have been coming out. So much for the Canon glass being superior argument people uses to make.
2470GM2 and 70200GM2 are amazingly light and excellent in AF / Image Quality. 50GM is the king of AF 50mm so far. Can't wait for the 85 f1.2 GM!
Super comparison. Canon colors despite flaring seem a bit warmer, saturated, and more natural-may be extra brightness of the Sony or a system difference. Thanks for such a fair review.
The true Sony problem is not body, is the actual 24-70 f2.8 lens. When they want Sony can propose a new 24-70 we can be at the level. Every G master Sony lens are very good, very small and light but NOT the 24-70 f2.8. And for me is a very important tool tha make me stay on Canon who have since long time the excellent EF 24-70 f2.8.
Sony is releasing it this month!
2470GM2 is here now for a few months.
A bit late of a reply, but I gave up on 24-70's. The Tamron 35-150mm F/2-F/2.8 is the way to go.
Luckily I am a Sony guy.
Thanks for a good comparision.
Картинка с canon и sony дегко отличить - sony больше контраста, более резкая картинка. Тут заслуга zeiss наработок, без муар фильровая матрица, хорошая работа dro.
I actually kind of like the characteristics of non lab perfect lenses, the sigma glass especially to me seems like they are after the most white wall lab perfect lens and for somethings thats great I dont think portartats necessarily benefit from that. I would love to see some of the 80s Medium format glass paired with a modern rf focus system
Nice one!
“CaNoN coLoRs aRe sO mUcH bEttEr ThaN SoNys”
-Every crying canon fanboy
Funny thing is I thought A was canon because I thought the greens looked a smidge better and I assumed based off the colors “looking better.” In reality they look the same and it all comes down to editing anyways. Meanwhile the only issue I see with canon is the price of the RF glass…
Thank you for doing lens tests with actual human beings in the frame and not just test charts and fairy lights.
The RF has the smoother Bokeh.
No if you try a blind test you can’t tell, both have a great bokeh
Absolutely like Canon more, it has some character.
the thing is you can have the canon look on Sony but you can't have the other way
Im hearing more and more that sony is better. However i think canon is good for beginner photographers. Canon eos r here.
I used to shoot Canon (5d2 to 5d4), with a ton of L glass. I got to admit…I wonder what I was missing and it’s the flare! I kinda like it, a lot…
Ironically Canon lens is more expensive than Sony 🙂 I use both Canon & Sony system by the way
I dig the canon for the flares but hell naw it has tons of color fringing and aberations wtf!
For me it doesn't matter, it so close then it depends on what system you are on.
WRONG : 9:35 Bokeh balls are, PROPORTIONNALY, of the same size. Mind bogeling how precisaly you, within this otherwise superb video (usefull, overall correct conclusions) did not take in account this (Roughly: Eyebrows are at same hight, nose much longer on the Canon pic. Under its right eye you could place more multiple eyes underneath on the canon pic than "multiple eyes" under the Sony's right eye pic. Apply this factor to the Bokeh ball and proportion balance out equal - I pretend)
BTW Lens flare of the esthetic type can be added (not remooved lol) easily with lots of control with editing filters.
I (just only) wonder what if (morally ok? technically acceptably?) you had shifted color rendition of each file half way toward the other's rendering (convert to b&w at any stage is probably not helpfull).
Thank You for this video!
(I own the f1.2 sony -and had the early (old)Canon FE f1.2. )
BTW my Sigma DG DN 85mm F1.4 is far better to me than the (now "old") GM. Perhaps You might want to compare it (but/even turn on distortion control!) with Canon's versions.
The 85GM is the first GM prime, it is much older than the Sigma DG DN. So it is not a fair comparison. Wait for the 85 f1.2 GM.
@@wingcreator
? I meant (and said it) You to compare the DG DN to a Canon RF 85mm version.
?? Was this answer of Yours meant to imply that all the main stuff of my comments are not worth answering ?
The Sony won 💪🏼
Lens A definitely has more contrast and a more clinical look to my eye - not sure I like it. While it's hard to ignore the colour differences, these can be tweaked anyway. I do prefer the more natural look of Lens B. With the bonus of just pointing toward the sun if I want flare, without bloom filters etc. Great comparison, both great lenses.
At 10:50, is that purple fringing on your wife’s left hand?
Canon fan boy in comment area, they refused that sony much better in this comparison, just shoot dont care about the gear.
This doenst mean you're switching to Sony, does it? I shot both lenses, and the rendering and bokeh quality, especially in busy backgrounds, was quite a bit nicer on the Canon 50mm 1.2. There is a special look to the Canon images, but the Sony GM while nice, having the optical qualities of a 50mm 1.2 (depth of field), and it is well corrected for any imperfections (good coatings, little to no distortion), doesn't feel as special. The flare on the Canon 50 i find it artistic. That's just my subjective opinion.
Much prefer the canon with that beautiful flare
The flare does give it some nice character
But if i have to pick which lens i would pick to shoot wedding i'll definitely take the Canon , it is so dreamy the sun from her behind, makes ur wife looks so dreamy and daaamnnn it is so pleasing to the eye to watch, the sony, it has no character lol
Wonderful video thanks for the comparison. Very surprised because the Canon lens is out of this world but the Sony held its own. Gotta admit that Canon bloom looks nice. My experience with the Sony is the AF accuracy at 1.2 is heavily dependent on the body.
I would say that you should not compare two completely different cameras like you have. The Sony is a 60mp vs a 20mp Canon.
Sorry, but you lost me right there. Use a Sony A7R3 and Canon R5 to get the best comparison.
The A7IV is 30mp and the Canon is 20mp.
Lmao. Gotta love when people pop their head in and can’t even use correct info. That’s an L, David.
@3:10 Sony still use APS-C mount with their FE lenses, and the whole design looks ridiculous. And Bs are much better
All talk with no results. Drop your Instagram. 🤡
Sony has showed time and time again than their smaller diameter mount doesn't hinder them in any way. They got the sharpest, fastest focusing and best optically performing lenses in the premium segment. And for everyone else, the largest autofocusing native lens selection.
So stop the 70IQ fanboying with no basis in reality and just enjoy the system you personally prefer and stop bashing the other systems.
@@hiawrj it does, it's easier to make lens with larger mount compare small one, easier means it's cheaper to design one
Notice how sony stop making entry level lens, all their new lenses are about 1500 dollarish, while canon offer shooting 100-400 on ff at just 600 dollars
It also allow eccentric design such as 800/600 f11 and 35 1.8 macro which rear elements protruding so much behind mount, sony 35 is just normal 35, while canon 35 is a stabilized and macro at the same time for same amount of money
@@auliaalam4860 the difference is so minor in real world application. But by all means, if people want specific canon lenses that sony doesnt offer, then go ahead. But right now sony is 4 years ahead of competition when it comes to lens selection.
Personally I prefer premium lenses, so I use Sony bodies right now.
I've owned Canon and Nikon as well. If they start making stuff I personally want, then ill buy their bodies.
But mount size is the very least of my concerns.
@@hiawrj minor? Hmm
Canon 85 is 4 times magnification over sony, 4 times more pixel at close distance that you can skip buying macro lens
They are pushing it to next level, by allowing rear elements to get closer they planning to make 1200mm f8/f9 catadioptric lens with af, image stabilization and good iq, the idea is shoving glass close to sensor to improve IQ, can it be done in sony mount? Sure but need to do correction thus more expensive to make, defeating the purpose of catadioptric lens
IMO the Canon's bokeh just looks more pleasing as it is more softer than the sony. It could be that the canon is just a tiny bit more longer focal lenght than sony, thus creating better bokeh. And also the contrast & flaring thing is something that I personally liked much better on the canon than the sony. For my taste the sony seemed kinda too optically good that it lost some character. But in any case, both of them are pretty much identical with minimal differences. If you blame that either of them is preventing you from taking great photos, you might wanna quit photography :D
I like more the A
Nikon 1.2 not getting any love.
Huge beast - 1090 g? I wouldn't want to carry it in my bag. However, Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 is going in the right direction.
Canon bether artistic lens